[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use uninterruptible mutex_lock for userptr bo creation

[Chris Wilson]

Mika encountered one pathological scenario under X where acquiring all
the mm locks (required to insert a mmu notifier) was very slow, so slow
that by the time we tried to lock the struct_mutex with the usual call
to i915_mutex_lock_interruptible(), X's signal timer had fired causing
us to restart the ioctl (and so looped indefinitely).

While I suspect this is the result of another bug (something leaking mm
perhaps?) we can forgo the error checking and interuptible nature of the
lock here so we only have to pay the expense once and get on with it.
This does expose the userptr creation routine to a driver livelock
though by not being interruptible.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
index bc4d30deb6c3..00f068cf7303 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
@@ -221,9 +221,12 @@ i915_mmu_notifier_add(struct drm_device *dev,
 	struct interval_tree_node *it;
 	int ret;
 
-	ret = i915_mutex_lock_interruptible(dev);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
+	/* By this point we have already done a lot of expensive setup that
+	 * we do not want to repeat just because the caller (e.g. X) has a
+	 * signal pending (and partly because of that expensive setup, X
+	 * using an interrupt timer is likely to get stuck in an EINTR loop).
+	 */
+	mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
 
 	/* Make sure we drop the final active reference (and thereby
 	 * remove the objects from the interval tree) before we do
-- 
2.1.4